Judgment K.A. Puj, J.—The appellants/original plaintiffs have filed the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Surat on 10th October 1983 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1981 reversing the judgment and decree dated 17th February 1981 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 1979 by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Kathor and thereby dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 2. The Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on 16.02.1984 and following substantial question of law was framed by the Court for determination and consideration of this Court: (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower Appellate Court has materially erred in law in interpreting the sale deed Exh.46. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present Second Appeal are that: the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are the owners of the land behind their houses bearing Nos. 1/58, 1/59, 1/60, 1/61 and 1/62 in village Bherav, Taluka:Kamrej, District:Surat. The area of the house along with the lands is 1313 Sq.Yards and thus, the measurement was given as 72 x 131 feet north-south. However, the plaintiffs have constructed their houses on the open land, which was purchased in the public auction and there are about 5 houses of the plaintiffs along with the ‘Wada’. The ‘Wada’ is on the southern side of their houses. But the said ‘Wada’ is in joint possession of the plaintiffs and thus, the plaintiffs have further alleged that the ‘Wada’ is about 64 feet in length east-west and on the southern side. It is triangular in shape and it is on the back side of the ‘Wada’ of the defendant No. 1. There are two Gobber Gas Plant in their ‘Wada’ and the plaintiffs are using the said ‘Wada’ for keeping agricultural implements and also growing grass in the monsoon. It is also recorded in the Government records. The house of the defendant No. 1 is on the western side of the house and the ‘Wada’ of the plaintiffs. The house of the defendant No. 1 bears No. 1/57 and it was purchased on 25th June 1974. It is also recorded in the Government records. The house of the defendant No. 1 is on the western side of the house and the ‘Wada’ of the plaintiffs. The house of the defendant No. 1 bears No. 1/57 and it was purchased on 25th June 1974. There is a registered sale deed and the house is purchased from Devchandbhai Durlabhbhai and thus the defendant No. 1 is in possession and enjoyment of the house along with the Wada according to the sale deed. The house of the defendant No. 1 is 16 feet in breadth and 48 feet in length. The Wada is about 68 feet in length. Hence, the total length is 116 feet according to the sale deed. The plaintiffs have been using the said land for the last many years and a hedge, Papaiya trees and other flower plants in the Wada were brought up by the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 has alleged that the said portion of the land was exchanged with the defendant No. 2, even though the plaintiffs are in possession of the Wada land. This fact was also mentioned in the registered sale deed. The defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 desire to take away the said land and they are trying to take away said portion of the wada land. The plaintiffs therefore filed a suit for injunction against the defendants. 4. On service of the summons, the defendants appeared before the trial Court and filed their written statement at Exh.18 and contended that there was a mistake in the measurement and the description of the boundary and therefore the plaintiffs desired to take an undue advantage of the said mistake. The defendant No. 2 was in possession of the land for the last more than 20 years and there was only a mistake of the boundary in the sale deed. It was also contended that the Commissioner had measured the defendants’ property in which the house was found 50 feet in length north-south and thereafter, the Wada is about 59x6 feet up to the Gobber Gas Plant and there is a dung pit, which is touching to the Gobber Gas Plant. It admeasures about 19 feet. So, the length of the Wada is about 78.6 feet. The Commissioner has not reported about any hedge of Mahendi. 5. It admeasures about 19 feet. So, the length of the Wada is about 78.6 feet. The Commissioner has not reported about any hedge of Mahendi. 5. After considering the rival submissions and pleadings of the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge framed six issues and it was held that the plaintiffs proved the ownership of Wada and they have also made out a prima facie case for injunction and ultimately the decree came to be passed in favour of the plaintiffs. 6. This judgment and decree was challenged before the lower Appellate Court and the lower Appellate Court, after having examined the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge and also after considering the material and evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have totally failed to prove that they are the owners of the disputed land admeasuring 16 x 57 feet. The plaintiffs have also failed to prove that they are in possession of the disputed land and thus the plaintiffs have no prima facie case nor the balance of convenience was in their favour. The lower Appellate Court has, therefore, held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to injunction. The appeal filed by the defendants came to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. 7. It is this judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, which is under challenge in the present Second Appeal. 8. Ms. Varsha Brahmbhatt, learned Advocate appearing for Ms. Vasuben P. Shah for the appellants has submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is contrary to law, against the provisions of statute and principle of natural justice. She has further submitted that the lower Appellate Court has committed an error in holding that the plaintiffs could not be in possession of the land beyond the boundary as mentioned in the sale deed Exh.46. She has further submitted that there is no justification in observing that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land more than what was purchased by them exclusive of the disputed piece of land. She has further submitted that the lower Appellate Court has made a wrong calculation of the area of the land in possession of the plaintiffs as described in the plaint. She has further submitted that the lower Appellate Court has made a wrong calculation of the area of the land in possession of the plaintiffs as described in the plaint. She has further submitted that the sale deed Exh.46 has been wrongly interpreted by the lower Appellate Court and thereby adverse inference was drawn by the lower Appellate Court. She has further submitted that despite there being no evidence to the effect that there was any mistake in the sale deed Exh.46, the lower Appellate Court has held that there was a mistake in the sale deed. She has further submitted that there was no material evidence on record which supports the finding that the title over the land was in dispute. She has further submitted that the sale deed Exh.46 was a document executed by and between the Respondent No. 1 and third party and therefore the plaintiffs could not have any knowledge about the contents of the said document. 9. Ms. Brahmbhatt specifically referred to and relied upon Exh.79 and Exh.43 and submitted that the plaintiffs had not claimed any land beyond the four boundaries as described in the sale deed Exh.43. In support of her submission she has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Shah Mahendrakumar Nagindas vs. State, (1983) XXIV (2) Gujarat Law Reporter P. 1008, wherein it is held that if there is any dispute about the measurement, the boundaries must prevail. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, Ms. Brahmbhatt has strongly argued that the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is contrary to the evidence on record and against the settled legal position and hence deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Second Appeal be allowed accordingly. 11. So far as Respondent No. 1 is concerned, he expired. Even Respondent No. 2 expired. However, his legal heirs are brought on record. During the pendency of Second Appeal, the appeal qua Respondent No. 1 stood abated and the Respondent No. 2/D also expired and the appeal stood abated qua Respondent No. 2/D also. Mr. M.A. Kharadi, the learned Advocate appears on behalf of Respondent No. 2/A, 2/B and 2/C. 12. However, his legal heirs are brought on record. During the pendency of Second Appeal, the appeal qua Respondent No. 1 stood abated and the Respondent No. 2/D also expired and the appeal stood abated qua Respondent No. 2/D also. Mr. M.A. Kharadi, the learned Advocate appears on behalf of Respondent No. 2/A, 2/B and 2/C. 12. The major contentions raised on behalf of the respondents are that the plaintiffs will have to prove the title over the land and for that purpose they have to lead necessary evidence of the title and possession, independently of the title deed of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs did not measure the land and did not prove the same. The Upaj Patrak at Exh.43 to which the reliance has been placed by the trial Court was concocted and got up document. The plaintiffs have clearly admitted in their evidence that except sale deed there is no evidence to support their case and to that extent no other evidence was available on record. The lower Appellate Court has discussed the entire evidence at great length and after dealing with all the contentions raised by the parties, held that, ‘it was very difficult to accept the contentions of the plaintiff that they were in possession of the disputed ‘Wada’ land’. The reliance on the sale deed Exh.46 was placed by the trial Court. The lower Appellate Court while accepting that there was an averment with reference to boundaries of land of defendant No. 1 and also measurement in the said sale deed but there was a mistake in the description and therefore the plaintiffs have made an attempt to take undue advantage of the said mistake. The lower Appellate Court has also discussed the issue regarding measurement in the sketch of the Commissioner and thereafter came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have no right to come towards the western side of the Wada land of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs could at the most travel up to the eastern side of the Wada of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs could at the most travel up to the eastern side of the Wada of the plaintiffs. The lower Appellate Court therefore specifically held that the learned trial Judge had not rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances according to law as he only relied upon the measurement and boundaries mentioned in the sale deed and considered the entire evidence of the plaintiffs and therefore the said finding arrived at by the learned trial Judge is not proper and accordingly set aside. 13. The lower Appellate Court has also discussed about the judgment relied upon by the plaintiffs and observed that there is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down by the Court in the said judgment and if there is any conflict between the measurements and the boundaries, the boundaries must prevail, meaning thereby, the plaintiffs can only claim the land within the boundaries even if it is in excess of the measurement but the plaintiffs cannot claim the land beyond those boundaries. The land claimed by the plaintiffs must be included within the boundaries but they have no right to travel beyond the four boundaries. The lower Appellate Court has recorded that the plaintiffs have tried to go beyond the four boundaries and the disputed land does not fall within the four boundaries according to the document Exh.43 and therefore the plaintiffs have no right whatsoever on the said disputed land. 14. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having minutely gone through the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below, the Court is of the view that as the lower Appellate Court has rightly discussed the controversy between the parties and the factual finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court after appreciation of the documents cannot be disturbed by this Court while exercising its appellant jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court does not see any infirmity or defect in the decision of the lower Appellate Court and even otherwise this being a finding of fact recorded by the lower Appellate Court, the Court does not see any justification in interfering with the said judgment. The Second Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.